Where do I find the potassium content of foods?

Q. My husband needs to reduce potassium/sodium levels in what he eats. I find the sodium levels but potassium is rarely listed. How do I find this?

A. Information about sodium is required on the nutrition facts label but information about potassium is optional--and many manufacturers don't include it.  The ingredient list won't contain many clues, either.  Products that are marketed as "heart-healthy" are more likely to list potassium content, by the way. Usually, these are foods that are relatively high in potassium and low in sodium.

You can look up the potassium content of foods here on ND, of course. Simply scroll down to the Nutrient Information box on any food detail page to see the amount of potassium that food contains. (Remember to select the appropriate serving size at the top of the page.) You can also use our nutrient search tool to research which foods are highest and lowest in potassium and sodium. 

In general, fruits and vegetables are the richest sources of dietary potassium. The average person eats about 3,000 mg of potassium a day. People with the highest intake of fruits and vegetables take in 4 or 5 times as much.

Fruits and vegetables that are particularly high in potassium include beet greens and spinach, potatoes, lima beans, green soybeans (edamame), bananas, prunes and prune juice, acorn squash, tomato juice, and raisins.  

Fruits and veggies for a low potassium diet

Of course, fruits and vegetables are among the healthiest foods that you can eat--which creates a bit of a dilemma for those who need to restrict potassium.  Fruits and vegetables that are relatively low in potassium include turnips and turnip greens, Napa cabbage, bean sprouts, leeks, pears, blueberries, cranberries, and apples. Cooking (and draining) vegetables and fruits can also remove up to 70% of the potassium--although other nutrients are lost as well. 

Hope that helps!

How much potassium do you need?

Q. How much potassium do I need?

A.  The Daily Value (DV) for potassium is 3500mg per day. When you look at the nutrition detail for any food or recipe here on ND, you'll see the amount of potassium listed, along with the percentage of DV. 

The Daily Value is a sort of one-size-fits all recommendation that is thought to represent the average needs of most healthy people. In 2004, the Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine established an adequate intake (AI) recommendation for potassium based on the amounts that have been found to lower blood pressure, reduce salt sensitivity, and minimize the risk of kidney stones.  For adults, the AI is 4700mg per day. (Tip: You can personalize your nutrient targets using My Preferences.)

Another reason to eat your vegetables!

Recent surveys show that most Americans fall short of the recommended amount of potassium. I think this is mostly because most people don't eat enough fruits and vegetables, which are high in potassium. (People whose diets are high in fruits and vegetables usually get two to three times the recommended amount.)

Severe potassium deficiency is usually caused by things like severe vomiting or diarrhea, bulimia, laxative abuse, or use of certain diuretic medications.

The ratio of sodium to potassium is also something to think about. People who eat a high sodium diet may need more potassium than those who eat a low sodium diet. I discussed this at greater length in this post: http://blog.nutritiondata.com/ndblog/2009/03/sodium-and-pota.html.

For more information on potassium and health, see the Linus Pauling Micronutrient Information Center

A couple of fixes to announce

Your questions (and my answers) restored

Every week, I get a boatload of interesting nutrition questions from NutritionData.com users. Of course, I can't give individualized nutrition or medical advice over the internet, but I try to answer (or at least respond to!) as many of your questions as I can here on the blog. 

To facilitate this, we set up the Ask Monica page, where you can post your questions in the comment section. I address topics that may be of interest to a lot of readers in blog posts. (You'll find them all archived in the Ask Monica folder).  In addition, I post brief answers to many other questions right in the comment itself. You can search the questions on the Ask Monica page by keyword using the Ctrl-F ("Find on page") feature on your browser.

Recently, during a reconfiguration,  all but a few of the comments disappeared from the Ask Monica page.  If you posted a new question recently, you would not have seen it (or my answer) on the page.  Oops! 

As of today, however, you can once again see (and search for) questions and responses on the Ask Monica page. 

IF Ratings for recipes!

Thanks also for your patience while we tracked down and fixed a bug that was preventing us from calculating IF Ratings for recipes.  The IF Ratings for recipes are once again working!  A note: Some ingredients in our database do not have IF Ratings (N/A means Not Available) because there is insufficient nutrient data to calculate the rating.  If unrated ingredients contribute more than ten percent of the calories in a recipe, the IF Rating for the entire recipe is N/A. 

For more information on the IF Ratings, see also this post.

Together we're better

We always appreciate your help in identifying issues on the site and your patience while we solve them!

Creating your own Nutrition Facts labels

Q. Do you have a tool that will create a Nutrition Facts label for a recipe?

A. Do we ever!  You can enter a recipe using My ND. If you haven't already, you'll have to create a log-in to create and save your recipes. More help is available on our My ND Help page. 

Once you've entered in your ingredients, click "save and analyze" to see a complete nutritional analysis of your recipe, including the Nutrition Facts label. Right beneath the label is a link you can click which allows you to download and print out your label!

 

You can use these labels (in printed form) at no cost. People have used this tool to create labels for homemade jams or baked goods, gifts, retail products, and even books.

Have fun!

Is a peanut butter sandwich a complete protein?

Q. I have read that certain grains when combined with certain legumes constitute a complete protein.  Since peanuts are a legume, would a peanut-butter sandwich made with whole-wheat bread constitute a complete protein?

A.   Nutrition Data's analysis of individual foods and recipes includes an amino acid (or protein quality) score.  Using our recipe analysis tool, I find that a peanut butter sandwich made with two slices of whole wheat bread and two tablespoons of peanut butter has a protein score of 39, indicating that it does not contain the optimal combination of amino acids that is considered to be a "complete" protein. 

This is not as big a deal as you might think, however.  Optimizing protein quality is most important if you have a very low-protein diet. Most Americans (including vegetarians) get plenty of protein, however, and take in more than enough amino acids to fulfill their needs.

This post explains a lot more about protein quality, the amino acid score, and whether or not you need to worry about it: http://blog.nutritiondata.com/ndblog/2008/06/on-beans-rice-a.html

Counting carbs: which number matters?

Q. I'm restricting my carb intake to lower my blood sugar levels and lose weight. What number should I use to track my daily carb intake? The number of carbs listed on the nutritional label? The number of net carbs (not exactly sure what that is)? The GI number? The GL number?

A.  Let me see if I can clear up the confusion about what all these numbers mean. Each number tells you something slightly different about the quality and quantity of carbohydrates in a food. You could choose any of them as your "marker." Each has pros and cons, which I'll outline below.

Total Carbohydrates, which is the number you'll find on the nutrition facts label, represents everything that's not protein, fat, or alcohol.  It includes starches, sugars, and fiber.  You can establish a target percentage for total carbohydrates, such as 40% of total calories, or a total number of grams, say, 150g. Your actual target number will depend on whether you're going for a moderate carb, low carb, or very low carb regimen.

One of the advantages of tracking total carbohydrates is that this number is almost always available, whereas a more detailed breakdown of carbohydrates is only sometimes given.  A potential weakness is that the number includes fiber, which is a nondigestible carbohydrates.  A high-fiber food might have more total carbohydrates than a low fiber food but still be lower in digestible (i.e. real) carbs.

Net Carbs refers to the digestible carbohydrates in a food. In most cases, this means the total carbohydrates minus the fiber. In some cases, sugar alcohols--which are a nondigestible form of sugar--are also subtracted from the total.  If you are tracking net carbs, as opposed to total carbs, your target will probably be slightly lower than if you are tracking total carbs.

Tracking net carbs is a slightly more refined version of tracking carbohydrates. One advantage is that it allows or even encourages you to eat more high-fiber foods because these don't blow your carb budget. Eating low net carb foods that are high in sugar alcohols, on the other hand, can lead to digestive distress.

Glycemic Index (GI) refers to a carbohydrate food's likely effect on your blood sugar.  For example, you could choose  to avoid foods with a high GI (70+), limit foods with a moderate GI (40-70), and focus on low GI foods (<40).  This will in effect shift your diet away from sweets and refined starches and toward whole grains, fruits, and vegetables.

The advantage of paying attention to GI is that it helps you to distinguish "good" carbs, which create a gradual and sustained increase in blood sugar, from "bad" carbs, which cause sharp increase in blood sugar. Some of the disadvantages of GI are that there is a limited number of foods for which the GI is known; the GI doesn't reflect serving size in any way (one carrot has the same GI as a hundred carrots); and there is a great deal of variation in how foods affect different people, so the GI may or may not predict how you will respond to a given food.  You can read more about the GI on our GI Topic page.

Glycemic Load (GL) is the GI multiplied by the amount of carbohydrates.  In other words, the GL of one hundred carrots is about a hundred times the GL of one carrot.  You can track the GL of individual foods but it's probably more helpful to look at the GL of whole meals. You might aim to keep the GL of each meal below 25 and the GL for the entire day below 100, for example.  Again, the actual numbers will depend on just how much you want to restrict carbs.

The advantage of glycemic load is that expresses both the quality of a carbohydrate (it's potential impact on blood sugar) as well as the quantity.  I think is a more useful and accurate indicator than the raw GI. The estimated Glycemic Load (eGL) here on NutritionData.com also makes GL figures available for any food and not just the limited number of foods that have been through GI testing. Read more about the eGL on our eGL Help Page.

Total Sugar is one more option that you didn't mention.  As sugar is the form of carbohydrate that has the most dramatic impact on blood sugar and can contribute to weight gain in the form of empty calories, many people simply choose to track and limit their sugar intake.  The World Health Organization recommends limiting added sugars (which do not include the natural sugars found in fruits and dairy products) to 10% of total calories, which is about 50g a day for a 2,000 calorie diet.

One advantage to limiting added sugars is that it focuses on the foods that offer least nutritionally and often do the most damage to health.  One disadvantage is that sugar is not always listed separately on nutrition facts labels.

What's a carb counter to do?

So, to return to your question: Which of these numbers does it make the most sense to track?  It really depends on your approach.  If you have embraced a hard-core, low-carb philosophy, then you're probably going to want to track total or net carbs.  If, on the other hand, you're simply looking for a way to monitor your diet and shift it toward healthier choices, I think tracking GL or total sugars can be quite useful. 

Also, take into account your personality. If you just want a quick and dirty way to keep tabs, I'd go with total carbs, which is readily available on every nutrition facts label. If you're trying to be more exact and are willing to do a little extra leg work, then net carbs and/or GL might be valuable.

Let me know what you decide and whether this was helpful!

New devices measure your metabolism, but how accurate are they?

To maintain your weight, you need to match your calorie intake to your calorie usage. And if you're trying to lose weight, you need to make sure that you consistently take in fewer calories than you are using.

Most people simply estimate how many calories they can afford using tools such as our Daily Needs Calculator. But there are a bunch of new gadgets on the market that claim to give you an exact read on how many calories you're burning. 

Just how accurate are they? Perhaps less precise than you might think The type of devices that are worn next to the skin--costing anywhere from $50 to $200--can be off by anywhere from 10% to 30%.   If you're willing to fork out significantly more ($7000 to $10,000), you can buy a device that measures your resting metabolism when you breathe into a mask for several minutes. These calorimeters can reveal individual differences in basic metabolic rate but can't tell you how many calories you are burning through exercise and other activities.

Here are links to reviews of some of the latest gadgets:

Find out how many calories your body burns (Chicago Tribune)
How accurate are devices that track calories? (Wall Street Journal)

Or, you can keep doing it the low-tech, low-cost way.  Use a standard formula such as the Daily Needs Calculator to put you in the right ball-park.  Pay attention to how many calories you are actually eating. (Our tracking tools can help.) Adjust as necessary.  If you're maintaining your weight, you've found your calorie balance. To lose weight, cut back on your intake or step up your output.

Being a carb-counting vegan is a tough job

Q. I'm attempting to maintain a 40-40-20 macronutrient balance with the assistance of your website's tools.  As a vegan athlete, I eat more vegetables and grains than an omnivore, and it is nearly impossible to achieve the 40-40-20 balance without cutting down on either vegetables or carbs, which I believe would not be healthy for me. Is there a way for the caloric ratio pyramid tool to take into account the difference between vegetable carbs and cereal/grain carbs?

A. Not really--but I'm not sure how that would help.  The Caloric Ratio Pyramid shows you how your calories are divided between carbohydrates, protein, and fat but doesn't distinguish between different sources of these macronutrients.  So, your carbohydrate percentage will include the carbohydrates you get from grains, vegetables, dairy products and fruits.

But here's the thing: Although vegetables are almost 100% carbohydrate, most are still very low in carbohydrates. So cutting down on vegetables isn't going to change your macronutrient distribution nearly as quickly as cutting down on grains.  A one cup serving of brown rice, for example, contains 216 calories and 45 grams of carbs. If you are eating 2100 calories a day, that would be 10% of your calories, right there.

A salad made with SIX CUPS of raw spinach, on the other hand, contains just 42 calories and 6 grams of carbs (or about 2% of your 2100 calorie diet).  So, I'm not sure it makes much sense to try to the adjust the carbohydrates proportion of your diet by cutting back on vegetables.

You're absolutely right: Vegans usually end up consuming a diet that's higher in carbohydrates and lower in protein than omnivores. After all, some of the most common vegan protein sources--legumes--contain about as much carbohydrates as protein. Nonetheless, it's possible for a vegan to eat a lower carb/higher protein diet. Tough, but possible. (Whether or not its necessary or desirable is a subject for another post).

ND Tools for customizing your diet

Here on ND, you might want to start by setting your preferences so that results from meat, dairy, and egg categories don't show up in your searches. Then, try a search with our Nutrient Search Tool for foods high in protein and low in carbohydrates. Click on the various categories to refine your searches.

Or, use our super-cool Caloric Ratio Search tool!

 

Position your cursor on the pyramid to select a certain macronutrient ratio and click to see a list of foods that match that ratio. Keep in mind that in a 40/40/20 diet, very few individual foods are likely to be 40/40/20.  But say your typical mealplan always seems to lean too heavy on the carbs and fat and too light on the protein. Put your cursor on the part of the pyramid that's high in protein and low in carbs and fat and click for a list of foods that can help you balance your diet.

Calling all low-carb and athlete vegans:

Seems to me we've had some low-carb vegans commenting on this blog in the past and I know we have some vegan body-builders. Anyone out there want to share some more strategies or resources?

Healthy Weight Loss: When the usual formulas don't apply

Q. I want to lose 10-15 pounds, which would put me in the middle of the healthy weight range for my height. I've read that losing 1-2 pounds a week is healthy.  However, when I used the daily needs calculator on your site, it said if I cut back to the recommended minimum of 1200 calories per day I could only lose .4 pounds a week.  So which is right?  Could exercise help explain the discrepancy?  Thanks!

Q. It sounds as if the daily needs calculator estimates that it takes about 1400 calories to maintain your current weight. In order to lose one pound a week, you'd have to cut back to about 900 calories per day--and that's lower than we usually recommend that you go for more than a day or two because it increases the chances that you'll be falling short on important nutrients.

If you cut back to the recommended minimum of 1200 calories/day, you'll only be creating a 200 calorie per day deficit, which adds up to the slower  .4 lb/wk weight loss.

Remember, though, that these guidelines are rules-of-thumb, designed for the average-sized person. Most people burn something closer to 1600 to 2400 calories per day. So if they cut back to 1200 calories, they create a much bigger deficit and lose the weight a lot faster. That's what the 1-2 pound/wk estimates that you see are based on.

But 1400 calories is pretty low--suggesting that you're either rather small, somewhat older, and/or fairly sedentary.  Losing a half-pound a week might be a perfectly  appropriate pace for you, especially if you are on the smaller side and this half pound represents a larger percentage of your total weight.

A nutritionist or dietician would be able to give you more personalized guidance about appropriate calorie intake for weight loss.  But you're on to something:  burning more calories with exercise will create a bigger deficit (without you having to dip below 1200 calories) and speed your weight loss.

Related content: 
How many calories do I need?
Diet and Weight Loss Resource Center

Updated recommendations for calcium and D

Move over, calcium. Vitamin D now seems to be the premiere nutrient in the fight against osteoporosis. It's been the subject of intense research lately and there's a growing consensus in the scientific community that we need to increase the recommended daily intake for this nutrient. At the same time,  mega-dose calcium supplementation seems to be falling from favor.

In response to the latest research findings, the National Osteoporosis Foundation recently updated their recommendations for these two nutrients. According to the new NOF recommendations, adults under age 50 need 1,000 mg of calcium daily, and adults age 50 and over need 1,200 mg of calcium daily.

Don't forget about food as a source of nutrients!

Note that the NOF recommendatations represent the amount that you should get from dietary sources and supplements combined!  For years, women (especially) have been so brow-beaten (by their doctors, by the media, by manufacturers of calcium supplements) about not getting enough calcium that many now take 1500 mg or more a day in supplement form. 

But the average adult already gets around 600-750mg of calcium from her diet.  Another 1500mg in supplement form is clearly overkill. There's no evidence that getting more than the recommended intake does much good--and many worry that excessive calcium may even be detrimental. At the very least, it can be constipating!

You can use our diet tracking tools to see how much calcium your diet provides. Or, use the following rule of thumb to estimate. The average American diet provides about 250mg of calcium a day not counting dairy products.  Each serving of dairy adds another 200mg or so. I suggest that you take only enough supplemental calcium to make up the difference between your diet and the recommendations.

Just to up the ante a notch further, why not make it a goal (especially for your kids) to get at least 75% of your daily requirement from foods? Use our Nutrient Search Tool to find foods high in calcium.

Vitamin D is another story.

For vitamin D, the NOF recommends that adults under age 50 get 400-800 IU daily, and adults age 50 and older get 800 – 1,000 IU.  But average daily intake from foods is a fraction of that. Fortified dairy products are the primary source of vitamin D in the American diet. It is also found in egg yolks, saltwater fish, and liver--and, of course, produced in the skin when you are exposed to direct sunlight (without sunscreen). 

If you read this blog, you know I'm a BIG proponent of getting nutrients from foods rather than supplements but vitamin D is one that is pretty tough to get from foods alone. I personally take 1,000 IU a day as a supplement, especially in the winter when I am not getting much sunlight on my skin.